The more time people spend consuming free media, the less time they spend consuming purchased media, the less money they spend. You can spike your samples any which way (the way IP foes do), cherry-pick countless happy scenarios, but it all comes down to this: people spending less, and content producers struggling more.

Being a Yar is bad enough. Being one who thinks they're actually doing good, on the other hand...

This isn't actually how the market has evolved though. Consumers are spending just as much money as they ever have on legitimate media and the media industry isn't struggling. The only difference is how that money is being allocated. In the music industry, for example, people are buying less albums and singles. That's the big bullet point record companies cite. What they don't point out is that consumers make upo that difference and more with concert sales. This results in individual artists making more per capita today and the big losers are the record labels which historically have played the role of middle men. As I stated before the primary limiting factor of media spending isn't determined by anything media suppliers can manipulate. Consumers simply have a finite amount of disposable income and they spend a certain amount of that income on media.

I was always interested in how you specifically would view this considering the major themes of TSA. Copyright and IP isn't actually universal and has only been around for a few hundred years. It's original intention was a form of censorship. Creative arts have flourished before copyright and it flourishes today in markets with lax copyright laws. In the West we've been conditioned to view copyright as an intrinsic right when the historically it's actually the anomoly.

I hesitate to even continue this debate since you are my favorite author and it would be easy for you to conclude that I'm advocating "theft" of your work. I'm not. I'm just pointing out that the marketplace is ever evolving and we can't put the genie back in the box. Good to artists have always found ways to profit from their work before and after the Internet.

The more time people spend consuming free media, the less time they spend consuming purchased media, the less money they spend. You can spike your samples any which way (the way IP foes do), cherry-pick countless happy scenarios, but it all comes down to this: people spending less, and content producers struggling more.

Being a Yar is bad enough. Being one who thinks they're actually doing good, on the other hand...

This isn't actually how the market has evolved though. Consumers are spending just as much money as they ever have on legitimate media and the media industry isn't struggling. The only difference is how that money is being allocated. In the music industry, for example, people are buying less albums and singles. That's the big bullet point record companies cite. What they don't point out is that consumers make upo that difference and more with concert sales. This results in individual artists making more per capita today and the big losers are the record labels which historically have played the role of middle men. As I stated before the primary limiting factor of media spending isn't determined by anything media suppliers can manipulate. Consumers simply have a finite amount of disposable income and they spend a certain amount of that income on media.

I was always interested in how you specifically would view this considering the major themes of TSA. Copyright and IP isn't actually universal and has only been around for a few hundred years. It's original intention was a form of censorship. Creative arts have flourished before copyright and it flourishes today in markets with lax copyright laws. In the West we've been conditioned to view copyright as an intrinsic right when the historically it's actually the anomoly.

I hesitate to even continue this debate since you are my favorite author and it would be easy for you to conclude that I'm advocating "theft" of your work. I'm not. I'm just pointing out that the marketplace is ever evolving and we can't put the genie back in the box. Good to artists have always found ways to profit from their work before and after the Internet.

recording artists, who have deals not too different from authors, have generally made most of their money off touring and ancillary products like merch, not selling albums. The advent of Spotify as a capitulation to this hasn't really killed off artists--it killed off piracy much faster.

I think it would make sense to publish say, the atrocity tales, as a kindle singles or have a different way of publishing the last series, since the classic publisher-backed book deal hasn't done wonders.

Though if Overlook owns the characters and setting, that might be hard.

The more time people spend consuming free media, the less time they spend consuming purchased media, the less money they spend. You can spike your samples any which way (the way IP foes do), cherry-pick countless happy scenarios, but it all comes down to this: people spending less, and content producers struggling more.

Being a Yar is bad enough. Being one who thinks they're actually doing good, on the other hand...

This isn't actually how the market has evolved though. Consumers are spending just as much money as they ever have on legitimate media and the media industry isn't struggling. The only difference is how that money is being allocated. In the music industry, for example, people are buying less albums and singles. That's the big bullet point record companies cite. What they don't point out is that consumers make upo that difference and more with concert sales. This results in individual artists making more per capita today and the big losers are the record labels which historically have played the role of middle men. As I stated before the primary limiting factor of media spending isn't determined by anything media suppliers can manipulate. Consumers simply have a finite amount of disposable income and they spend a certain amount of that income on media.

I was always interested in how you specifically would view this considering the major themes of TSA. Copyright and IP isn't actually universal and has only been around for a few hundred years. It's original intention was a form of censorship. Creative arts have flourished before copyright and it flourishes today in markets with lax copyright laws. In the West we've been conditioned to view copyright as an intrinsic right when the historically it's actually the anomoly.

I hesitate to even continue this debate since you are my favorite author and it would be easy for you to conclude that I'm advocating "theft" of your work. I'm not. I'm just pointing out that the marketplace is ever evolving and we can't put the genie back in the box. Good to artists have always found ways to profit from their work before and after the Internet.

Actually consumers are spending less money--way less in some circumstances. Large musical acts are able to recoup income via concerts, but I have friends in the industry who've sacrificed health and relationships touring and touring endless dives, sometimes glad just to get paid in drinks because of the glut of bands out there. Otherwise, the marketers now utterly rule the mainstream music scene.

Even if your spiked versions of the data that consumers were paying the same were true, that would still count as an economic loss, a year over year loss compounded into a genuine disaster in a mere decade.

The only argument worse than this is the argument that IP is an oppressive and artificial cultural device. All economic norms are oppressive and artificial. Yars just pick and choose those that make them feel better, they way all free-riders do.

Otherwise, who said anything about putting the genie in back in the box? It's about creating a culture that maximizes the number of people who do pay, and dispelling the ridiculous argument that giving away free content actually increases the amount of money ALL artists receive. It may help certain artists in certain circumstances, the same way giving away Toyotas at hockey games helps sell Toyotas. It's proselytizing Yars like you, the ones who think returning to the age patronage is good, 'natural,' and that the vast explosion of professionalized creativity arising out of IP was 'unnatural,' 'oppressive,' bad--YOU are the virus, the one slowly ensuring every piece of content is selling something other than itself, via patronage obligations, or product placement, or the simple terror of doing anything different as a profession.

YOU WOULD NOT HAVE READ A SINGLE ONE OF MY BOOKS, were it not for this oppressive, unnatural system you're decrying.

A few years back my agent asked me to pull together some illegal download numbers for PoN to convince Overlook to lower their kindle price point. So I toured a wide number of sites--those possessing download counters. I stopped once I surpassed the number of books I had actually sold. And this actually helped my sales? Give me a fucking break buddy. Go peddle your self-serving bullshit to someone who doesn't have a family to feed, but wants to feel like they're sticking it to the man taking food out of the mouths of the people they claim to admire and adore. Steal if you want, but stop pretending you're doing good, let alone heeding destiny's call.

The more time people spend consuming free media, the less time they spend consuming purchased media, the less money they spend. You can spike your samples any which way (the way IP foes do), cherry-pick countless happy scenarios, but it all comes down to this: people spending less, and content producers struggling more.

Being a Yar is bad enough. Being one who thinks they're actually doing good, on the other hand...

This isn't actually how the market has evolved though. Consumers are spending just as much money as they ever have on legitimate media and the media industry isn't struggling. The only difference is how that money is being allocated. In the music industry, for example, people are buying less albums and singles. That's the big bullet point record companies cite. What they don't point out is that consumers make upo that difference and more with concert sales. This results in individual artists making more per capita today and the big losers are the record labels which historically have played the role of middle men. As I stated before the primary limiting factor of media spending isn't determined by anything media suppliers can manipulate. Consumers simply have a finite amount of disposable income and they spend a certain amount of that income on media.

I was always interested in how you specifically would view this considering the major themes of TSA. Copyright and IP isn't actually universal and has only been around for a few hundred years. It's original intention was a form of censorship. Creative arts have flourished before copyright and it flourishes today in markets with lax copyright laws. In the West we've been conditioned to view copyright as an intrinsic right when the historically it's actually the anomoly.

I hesitate to even continue this debate since you are my favorite author and it would be easy for you to conclude that I'm advocating "theft" of your work. I'm not. I'm just pointing out that the marketplace is ever evolving and we can't put the genie back in the box. Good to artists have always found ways to profit from their work before and after the Internet.

As an artist myself, I find this line of reasoning selfserving, to say the least. It's very simple: if you go your local supermarket, you pay for your food, right? And I assume that, whatever work you do, you get paid for that as well, right? Just because something is available on the internet, it does not mean that it is not stealing, or that it won't have that effect. Why do you assume that it is different for artists? Scott has already reflected on the bizarre faults in logic that come with these justifications.

Actually consumers are spending less money--way less in some circumstances. Large musical acts are able to recoup income via concerts, but I have friends in the industry who've sacrificed health and relationships touring and touring endless dives, sometimes glad just to get paid in drinks because of the glut of bands out there. Otherwise, the marketers now utterly rule the mainstream music scene.

Even if your spiked versions of the data that consumers were paying the same were true, that would still count as an economic loss, a year over year loss compounded into a genuine disaster in a mere decade.

The only argument worse than this is the argument that IP is an oppressive and artificial cultural device. All economic norms are oppressive and artificial. Yars just pick and choose those that make them feel better, they way all free-riders do.

Otherwise, who said anything about putting the genie in back in the box? It's about creating a culture that maximizes the number of people who do pay, and dispelling the ridiculous argument that giving away free content actually increases the amount of money ALL artists receive. It may help certain artists in certain circumstances, the same way giving away Toyotas at hockey games helps sell Toyotas. It's proselytizing Yars like you, the ones who think returning to the age patronage is good, 'natural,' and that the vast explosion of professionalized creativity arising out of IP was 'unnatural,' 'oppressive,' bad--YOU are the virus, the one slowly ensuring every piece of content is selling something other than itself, via patronage obligations, or product placement, or the simple terror of doing anything different as a profession.

YOU WOULD NOT HAVE READ A SINGLE ONE OF MY BOOKS, were it not for this oppressive, unnatural system you're decrying.

A few years back my agent asked me to pull together some illegal download numbers for PoN to convince Overlook to lower their kindle price point. So I toured a wide number of sites--those possessing download counters. I stopped once I surpassed the number of books I had actually sold. And this actually helped my sales? Give me a fucking break buddy. Go peddle your self-serving bullshit to someone who doesn't have a family to feed, but wants to feel like they're sticking it to the man taking food out of the mouths of the people they claim to admire and adore. Steal if you want, but stop pretending you're doing good, let alone heeding destiny's call.

Your second main argument is that the goal should revolve around "creating a culture that maximizes the number of people who do pay." I actually agree with this. The problem is we do not share basic assumptions. If anything we're actually close to this "maximize paying" culture or we might be beyond it. What exactly do you believe such a culture would look like? Currently in the USA the average American Household carries over $8k in credit card debt and the vast majority do not pay off their balance each month. I pointed out earlier that the limiting factor on media spending is a basic lack of disposable income. The average credit card debt figure, which is approaching all time highs, strongly argues that Americans shouldn't be spending more on media at all and should probably spend less. So if we maximize paying even more, what exactly would an economy like this even look like? How could you argue that it's healthy? This also ignoring the multiple counterexamples that we have in other countries with lax copyright laws. Artistic creators are able to generate income in those countries too using different business models.

You accuse me also of being the problem and even called me a virus. I didn't want to make an anecdotal example of myself but if you insist on using me as an example I can rock with it. I recently had a planning meeting with a financial advisor and we concluded I wasn't saving enough. Don't get me wrong I save more than most but still don't save enough. I don't have terrible CC debts thankfully but it's pretty clear to me I spend too much on media. I have first editions of all your PoN books and I overpaid terribly for a first edition of TTT which ebay advertised was signed by you. With your second series, I've pre-ordered multiple copies from multiple sites to get them as soon as possible. With TWLW I placed a next day order from Amazon Canada to get it a few days early without canceling my American Amazon hardcover which I still own because I want matching covers. I paid a premium for an Advance Reader copy on Ebay for the Great Ordeal while, again, retaining a first edition hardcover for my display. Most recently I ordered a UK copy of TGO because I needed to ensure I got my copy before I went on a 3 week vacation in Asia. This is on top of my legitimate Kindle purchases of your all your books. I don't care enough about music to pirate it since I listen to audiobooks or podcasts in my car and I only watch what's on TV and am an avid theater goer. I also game mostly on XBO which, as far as I know, has never been hacked to play bootlegs.

So as you can see, I'm actually a model consumer if anything. Just because you are my favorite author doesn't mean I'll just let you insult me or make incorrect assumptions about me. I look at the issue of piracy on a macro scale whereas you seem to be arguing on an emotional level. Any rational analysis of my spending habits would lead to the conclusion that I spend too much on media or media related merchandise.

As an artist myself, I find this line of reasoning selfserving, to say the least. It's very simple: if you go your local supermarket, you pay for your food, right? And I assume that, whatever work you do, you get paid for that as well, right? Just because something is available on the internet, it does not mean that it is not stealing, or that it won't have that effect. Why do you assume that it is different for artists? Scott has already reflected on the bizarre faults in logic that come with these justifications.

I outlined my media consumption habits above and I generally pay for my media. If anything I'm a collector and pay premiums for collectibles as my various display cases can attest. So I deny that my arguments are self serving since I don't actually pirate.

My arguments are based on economics and historic analysis of markets. As a random person I am an easy person to target rather than addressing my actual points.

As for your analogy you're ignoring a vital difference. Yes, I do go to a grocery store and pay for my groceries. If I took them without paying, that's theft. The difference here is that no physical copy is actually taken. Suppose we developed the technology to just replicate food like in Star Trek. Would that be stealing? That's a closer analogy than stealing food at a supermarket.

Generally I'm a free market proponent. People like to buy stuff and people like to sell stuff. Technology changes how this is done but people will still buy and sell stuff. Yes, piracy is changing the rules of business but this has happened before. As an example, Edison pirated his favorite concert player and the musician said Edison's invention would lead to the extinction of musicians since he reasoned if people could listen to his music from home, they would never support his concerts. That technology lead to musicians becoming stars by selling albums and today that industry is declining in favor of concert sales. So suppose we banned recording technology because of moral reasons. Do you really think musicians would be better off today?

Same with Napster which lead to iTunes. Pirated games also lead to Steam. Technology moves forward and businesses need to adapt to it. I refer again to developing markets. They have lax copyright laws but creators are still finding ways to sell their works.

Actually consumers are spending less money--way less in some circumstances. Large musical acts are able to recoup income via concerts, but I have friends in the industry who've sacrificed health and relationships touring and touring endless dives, sometimes glad just to get paid in drinks because of the glut of bands out there. Otherwise, the marketers now utterly rule the mainstream music scene.

Even if your spiked versions of the data that consumers were paying the same were true, that would still count as an economic loss, a year over year loss compounded into a genuine disaster in a mere decade.

The only argument worse than this is the argument that IP is an oppressive and artificial cultural device. All economic norms are oppressive and artificial. Yars just pick and choose those that make them feel better, they way all free-riders do.

Otherwise, who said anything about putting the genie in back in the box? It's about creating a culture that maximizes the number of people who do pay, and dispelling the ridiculous argument that giving away free content actually increases the amount of money ALL artists receive. It may help certain artists in certain circumstances, the same way giving away Toyotas at hockey games helps sell Toyotas. It's proselytizing Yars like you, the ones who think returning to the age patronage is good, 'natural,' and that the vast explosion of professionalized creativity arising out of IP was 'unnatural,' 'oppressive,' bad--YOU are the virus, the one slowly ensuring every piece of content is selling something other than itself, via patronage obligations, or product placement, or the simple terror of doing anything different as a profession.

YOU WOULD NOT HAVE READ A SINGLE ONE OF MY BOOKS, were it not for this oppressive, unnatural system you're decrying.

A few years back my agent asked me to pull together some illegal download numbers for PoN to convince Overlook to lower their kindle price point. So I toured a wide number of sites--those possessing download counters. I stopped once I surpassed the number of books I had actually sold. And this actually helped my sales? Give me a fucking break buddy. Go peddle your self-serving bullshit to someone who doesn't have a family to feed, but wants to feel like they're sticking it to the man taking food out of the mouths of the people they claim to admire and adore. Steal if you want, but stop pretending you're doing good, let alone heeding destiny's call.

Your second main argument is that the goal should revolve around "creating a culture that maximizes the number of people who do pay." I actually agree with this. The problem is we do not share basic assumptions. If anything we're actually close to this "maximize paying" culture or we might be beyond it. What exactly do you believe such a culture would look like? Currently in the USA the average American Household carries over $8k in credit card debt and the vast majority do not pay off their balance each month. I pointed out earlier that the limiting factor on media spending is a basic lack of disposable income. The average credit card debt figure, which is approaching all time highs, strongly argues that Americans shouldn't be spending more on media at all and should probably spend less. So if we maximize paying even more, what exactly would an economy like this even look like? How could you argue that it's healthy? This also ignoring the multiple counterexamples that we have in other countries with lax copyright laws. Artistic creators are able to generate income in those countries too using different business models.

You accuse me also of being the problem and even called me a virus. I didn't want to make an anecdotal example of myself but if you insist on using me as an example I can rock with it. I recently had a planning meeting with a financial advisor and we concluded I wasn't saving enough. Don't get me wrong I save more than most but still don't save enough. I don't have terrible CC debts thankfully but it's pretty clear to me I spend too much on media. I have first editions of all your PoN books and I overpaid terribly for a first edition of TTT which ebay advertised was signed by you. With your second series, I've pre-ordered multiple copies from multiple sites to get them as soon as possible. With TWLW I placed a next day order from Amazon Canada to get it a few days early without canceling my American Amazon hardcover which I still own because I want matching covers. I paid a premium for an Advance Reader copy on Ebay for the Great Ordeal while, again, retaining a first edition hardcover for my display. Most recently I ordered a UK copy of TGO because I needed to ensure I got my copy before I went on a 3 week vacation in Asia. This is on top of my legitimate Kindle purchases of your all your books. I don't care enough about music to pirate it since I listen to audiobooks or podcasts in my car and I only watch what's on TV and am an avid theater goer. I also game mostly on XBO which, as far as I know, has never been hacked to play bootlegs.

So as you can see, I'm actually a model consumer if anything. Just because you are my favorite author doesn't mean I'll just let you insult me or make incorrect assumptions about me. I look at the issue of piracy on a macro scale whereas you seem to be arguing on an emotional level. Any rational analysis of my spending habits would lead to the conclusion that I spend too much on media or media related merchandise.

The sheer number of media consumers worldwide is exploding, so of course there's an overall gain. In Western music markets, revenue remains around 60% of its 2000 mark. Even looking at the EU data correlating higher illegal downloading with higher purchasing you very quickly run into differential granularity problems: the fact is, the 'long tail' as they call it, is getting skinnier and skinnier, and the long tail is where the genuine novelty incubates. The skinnier it gets, the less incubation time it has, the more likely it is to die off, the more monotonous and mechanical the mainstream becomes. (Since concert/touring income is almost entirely restricted to the manufacturers of pap, and only applicable to musicians to boot, it is an argumentative canard).

Like all instances of free-riding, the viability depends on honest brokers. Since you seem to recognize this now (abandoning the assertion that IP is an artificial instrument of oppression), then the question is one of why you aren't decrying illegal downloading? At what point do you think illegal downloading will negatively impact sales. When it reaches 50%? 60%? 70%? 80%? Do you only plan to defend it so far?

To the extent you provide apparently articulate rationales for illegal downloading you are, most definitely, part of the problem. I thank you for buying my books, but as someone who regularly encounters 'I'll keep reading, but I ain't paying a cent,' comments because of some perceived moral failing on my part, I would kindly ask that you stop encouraging people to perpetuate my poverty. Do you really think product placement and merchandising are commensurate with projects like mine? What other 'business model' do you have in mind? Government handouts? The last I checked my books contravened pretty much every 'literary scruple' an arts bureaucrat can be expected to muster.

I am genuinely 'out there.' The only way fools like me get to make a difference is by toughing it out in the long tail. The problem I face, even though my sell-through percentages are in the high 80 percentile range, is that publishers are becoming less and less inclined to 'develop' midlist authors, and more and more inclined to grope for lightning in a bottle. Why pay an artist to hone their craft when you need only troll for magical amateurs? The less books I sell, the more expendable I become. As soon as I vanish from bookstore shelves, my single biggest point of exposure to new readers vanishes also, as well as any chance of receiving mainstream attention. Then odds are, it's off to the experimenter's graveyard. The genre community finds me pretentious, too 'academic.' The academic community finds me vulgar, too 'genre.' My publishers are the only institutional leg I have to stand on... of course I find your chiseling insulting. That which robs me makes me richer.

In one breath you say illegal downloading generates IP income, and in the next you say it's time to find something other than IP income. Then you say I'm advocating higher levels of household debt. Ooof. If we don't let people steal X, then we risk the economy collapsing. And X = 'content' as opposed to 'chairs' or 'diapers' or 'allergy medication' why?

At the risk of alienating my favorite author, I'm firmly believe piracy is a bogeyman used by large media companies.

I've read a lot of studies on the issue and if you throw out the media sponsored ones and the ones that equate each pirated copy to a lost sale, the actual effect of piracy isn't bad and even has positive benefits.

In other words, big media are skewing results in order to minimize their profits... The only universe in which this argument could have bite is one where humans are hardwired to rationalize guilt

How would skewing results reduce their actual profits?

I'm skeptical on the whole piracy effect as well (I don't pirate, just to be clear) - I'd like to see some science done on it - if forced, whether they'd buy the book if they had no other access to it. I suspect many pirates have a hording condition - they don't read what they download (they can download more than they could read in a lifetime, after all), they just sit on it, like a dragon on its horde. Madly collecting meaning. But maybe some science would show they do read en masse and would pay en masse. Given the money in the various media industries, it's surprising they haven't paid what would be a relative pittance to run some science on this.

As for your analogy you're ignoring a vital difference. Yes, I do go to a grocery store and pay for my groceries. If I took them without paying, that's theft. The difference here is that no physical copy is actually taken. Suppose we developed the technology to just replicate food like in Star Trek. Would that be stealing? That's a closer analogy than stealing food at a supermarket.

A physical copy is indeed taken? Digitizing isn't supernatural.

And star trek doesn't explain if people it's setting have to pay for the energy of replication, or if they have some kind of socialist (or something like that) system that would actual support an author and his/her family, rather than leave them to the winds of the open market.

Assuming star trek has some kind of 'look after each other' system, you seem to be treating it that being able to copy books means we have that benefit of the star trek world as well? As if social care goes hand in hand with technology? It sounds like a faith in technology.

The sheer number of media consumers worldwide is exploding, so of course there's an overall gain. In Western music markets, revenue remains around 60% of its 2000 mark. Even looking at the EU data correlating higher illegal downloading with higher purchasing you very quickly run into differential granularity problems: the fact is, the 'long tail' as they call it, is getting skinnier and skinnier, and the long tail is where the genuine novelty incubates. The skinnier it gets, the less incubation time it has, the more likely it is to die off, the more monotonous and mechanical the mainstream becomes. (Since concert/touring income is almost entirely restricted to the manufacturers of pap, and only applicable to musicians to boot, it is an argumentative canard).

Like all instances of free-riding, the viability depends on honest brokers. Since you seem to recognize this now (abandoning the assertion that IP is an artificial instrument of oppression), then the question is one of why you aren't decrying illegal downloading? At what point do you think illegal downloading will negatively impact sales. When it reaches 50%? 60%? 70%? 80%? Do you only plan to defend it so far?

To the extent you provide apparently articulate rationales for illegal downloading you are, most definitely, part of the problem. I thank you for buying my books, but as someone who regularly encounters 'I'll keep reading, but I ain't paying a cent,' comments because of some perceived moral failing on my part, I would kindly ask that you stop encouraging people to perpetuate my poverty. Do you really think product placement and merchandising are commensurate with projects like mine? What other 'business model' do you have in mind? Government handouts? The last I checked my books contravened pretty much every 'literary scruple' an arts bureaucrat can be expected to muster.

I am genuinely 'out there.' The only way fools like me get to make a difference is by toughing it out in the long tail. The problem I face, even though my sell-through percentages are in the high 80 percentile range, is that publishers are becoming less and less inclined to 'develop' midlist authors, and more and more inclined to grope for lightning in a bottle. Why pay an artist to hone their craft when you need only troll for magical amateurs? The less books I sell, the more expendable I become. As soon as I vanish from bookstore shelves, my single biggest point of exposure to new readers vanishes also, as well as any chance of receiving mainstream attention. Then odds are, it's off to the experimenter's graveyard. The genre community finds me pretentious, too 'academic.' The academic community finds me vulgar, too 'genre.' My publishers are the only institutional leg I have to stand on... of course I find your chiseling insulting. That which robs me makes me richer.

In one breath you say illegal downloading generates IP income, and in the next you say it's time to find something other than IP income. Then you say I'm advocating higher levels of household debt. Ooof. If we don't let people steal X, then we risk the economy collapsing. And X = 'content' as opposed to 'chairs' or 'diapers' or 'allergy medication' why?

Talk about rationalization.

I'm still currently trying to see how feasible it would be to attend Zauduyanicon or Bakker on as I prefer to call it. I'm hoping this disagreement won't prevent you from signing my books.

Your music figure is almost certainly only covering legitimate sales of recorded music. If we examine the entire music industry, we see that despite the greatest recession in living memory, the music industry continues to thrive (http://www.economist.com/node/17199460). So while albums and singles sales, which pays peanuts to artists, artists are making more money than ever from concert sales and other merchandise.

You asked me how high piracy rates would go before I stopped defending it. I don't believe it's relevant to industry growth. Here's the percentage I focus on 5.6%, which is the percentage of household income spent on entertainment. Regardless of how much the piracy rate increases, the amount spent on entertainment is still only finite. If the average household can only allot 5.6% of their income to entertainment then pirating more won't make them earn more money to spend on media. I cited the CC debt figure to prove to you that the average American housold is, in fact, spending more money than it earns. You want to maximize spending right? So here's a simple thought experiment. Where is this money coming from? Money won't materialize just because we want to spend more on media.

I'm not advocating that people pirate to save the economy. I'm pointing out a simple fact that people have finite money and should spend it as they wish. We have multiple studies showing that most prolific pirates also spend the most on media so they are actually supporting media over, say, chairs. Conversely, if some one values chairs over media then they should buy more chairs. The market is good at allowing people to allocate their income however they want. As income rises and prices fall, we see increases in legitimate purchasing and less piracy. People just like to spend on media but we can only spend so much.

You are also correct when you point out that the media industry is growing because more and more people worldwide consume media. The fastest growing media markets though have notoriously high piracy rates. To reinforce my previous point, there is simply not enough money for the average person in developing markets to buy legitimate products. We've seen firsthand how China's increasing middle class is buying more legitimate media even though the same people were buying pirated versions before. As I keep arguing, disposable income determines how much money is spent on media.

As for publishers, why are we limiting ourselves to traditional publishing? I've actually been reading up on Amazon's self publishing and for mid level authors, they could earn more by self publishing than they would with a traditional publisher. The opportunities are there and if we examine the publishing industry as a whole, rather than focusing on traditional publishers. The rise of self publishing more than compensates for the decline in traditional publishing.

Also yes in one breath, I have no qualms saying illegal downloading generates IP income, and in the next say it's time to find something other than IP income. That's how complex markets work. There are many right ways to do things and wrong ways too. You have found Comercial success with traditional publishing. Others have found success by actively supplying their work for free. Some authors have benefited from pirated versions of their works. So as much as I respect you, their business model is just as valid as yours. To parallel the religious themes in TSA, there is no one right way to be a successful artist.

With respect, and this is a self serving request, I ask that you reconsider your stance on alternate sources of revenue if this issue really concerns you. I'm trying to bridge our disagreement into a productive request. There were a handful of people here already showing interest in action figures. The custom Kellhus figure I mentioned earlier will probably cost me over $500 to make and that's largely because there's no official stuff to buy. I would support you via patron if you ever decided to go that route. Wilshire was upgrading your books into these awesome leatherbound and I said I would only sign up for a set if you would agree to sign them as a semi official first edition collector set. Your fans are dying to support you if you let us.

Consider this an olive branch. I feel l have supported my position enough so you can at least see where I stand even though I know we will continue to disagree.

To clarify here, MGM, you're not just saying people can only spend so much - it's that they can only spend so much and then they can keep getting more than what they've paid for, because they can only spend so much?

Quote

So as much as I respect you, their business model is just as valid as yours. To parallel the religious themes in TSA, there is no one right way to be a successful artist.

But which is it, businessman or artist? Granted the current system has some staff at a publishing house to get past in order to be published, but apart from that a fair amount of artistic integrity is supported. How is artistic integrity maintained with self publishing, apart from appealing to an echo chamber (arguably zero artistic integrity at that point)? You can write what you want and be ignored, rather than engage thinking minds in the publishing industry and maybe get broadcast to people who would have otherwise ignored you?

I'll give it to you Scott for toughing it out and sticking to your guns. The genre community are a bunch of plebs, and lol at what academics think about anything.

This has to be one of the most elitist comments I ever saw in my life.

Logged

“The thoughts of all men arise from the darkness. If you are the movement of your soul, and the cause of that movement precedes you, then how could you ever call your thoughts your own? How could you be anything other than a slave to the darkness that comes before?”

I'm curious how you can get away with justifying that piracy is not theft because "nothing physical is taken". That only makes sense if you believe that the issue has nothing to do with payment. Theft if taking something without paying, not simply removing something from anothers possession without permission.

When you wrongfully take something without paying, it's stealing, that's pretty basic. How does a taking a digital item from a digital store make a difference.

To me, by that logic, if someone took all the money from your bank account, it's not stealing because it's all just 1s and 0s? How is pirating a song any different?It's called "getting your identity stolen" when someone gets enough digital info on you to buy stuff with your name. Is that not stealing? Again, how is that different than stealing an album?For that matter, taking a record from a store is stealing, but as soon as it's online it's somehow not?

Argue that it's helpful if you want, but let's all call it what it is. Plain and simple, if someone is doing it, they're a thief. If that's not the case, please enlighten me.If someone decides to give away their stuff for free and you get it, then you aren't pirating it. But otherwise, yes, that's theft.

I'm curious how you can get away with justifying that piracy is not theft because "nothing physical is taken". That only makes sense if you believe that the issue has nothing to do with payment. Theft if taking something without paying, not simply removing something from anothers possession without permission.

When you wrongfully take something without paying, it's stealing, that's pretty basic. How does a taking a digital item from a digital store make a difference.

To me, by that logic, if someone took all the money from your bank account, it's not stealing because it's all just 1s and 0s? How is pirating a song any different?It's called "getting your identity stolen" when someone gets enough digital info on you to buy stuff with your name. Is that not stealing? Again, how is that different than stealing an album?For that matter, taking a record from a store is stealing, but as soon as it's online it's somehow not?

Argue that it's helpful if you want, but let's all call it what it is. Plain and simple, if someone is doing it, they're a thief. If that's not the case, please enlighten me.If someone decides to give away their stuff for free and you get it, then you aren't pirating it. But otherwise, yes, that's theft.

Wilshire, you put it more eloquently than I could have. I had gotten as far as, 'so as technology changes, stealing is ok...?' / 'so if things are easily available, stealing is ok...?'